JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in letter No.D5/21300/2019 dated 31.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent No.3 to fix the pay of the petitioner with monetary benefits and also revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on par with his juniors, who enlisted during the year 1986.) Common Order 1. The writs on hand are filed against the orders of rejection passed by the third respondent for stepping up of pay of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Grade-II Police Constables and promoted as Special Sub-Inspectors of Police and thereafter, promoted as Sub-Inspectors of Police and all the petitioners are retired from service. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that there was a stagnation in the post of Grade-II Police Constable and in order to redress the grievances, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.844 Home(Pol 5) Department, dated 03.06.1997. In the said Government Order, the up-gradation scheme in a time bound manner on completion of 10 years of service were ordered. Accordingly, the petitioners were upgraded as Grade-I Constables and thereafter, on completion of 5 years, up-graded as Head Constables. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted upto the level of Sub-Inspectors of police. However, their juniors were awarded higher pay than that of the petitioners. Therefore, they have submitted an application for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors. The said application was rejected by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with their juniors, who have passed SSLC and by virtue of qualification, additional increments were granted to those juniors. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly contended that the petitioners are not eligible to compare themselves with other persons, who all are qualified and possessed the SSLC passed qualification. The petitioners have not possessed SSLC passed qualification at the time of enlistment. Therefore, the very comparison made by the petitioners are improper and therefore, the authorities have not considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same. 5. The petitioners have not possessed SSLC passed qualification at the time of enlistment. Therefore, the very comparison made by the petitioners are improper and therefore, the authorities have not considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same. 5. For grant of stepping up of pay on par with the juniors, the petitioners must be working in the same cadre and such petitioners shall not have any advantageous position by virtue of their qualification or otherwise in accordance with the rules. Only if both the senior and junior are equally placed in all respects then alone, the stepping up of pay can be granted in accordance with the fundamental rules. 6. The respondents in their counter affidavit has stated that the Police Personnel, who were enrolled during the year 1986 Batch, were considered for up-gradation and they were up-graded as Grade-I Constables during the year 1997. Based on the pay last drawn both the pay of the petitioners and the police personnel, who were enrolled during the year 1986 batch, were fixed according to the statutory rules. The person, who was quoted in the representations of the petitioners had SSLC passed qualification at the time of their enlistment and for which, they got 3 additional increments for additional qualification. In G.O.1054 Home, dated 22.03.1963, the Government sanctioned 3 advance increments to the Grade-II Police personnel, who had SSLC qualification. In G.O.No.714 Home (Services. G) Department dated 25.04.1991, the Government continues the benefits of higher start at two stages above the minimum scale of pay of Rs.825-1200 with effect from 01.06.1988. But the petitioners herein had the educational qualification as X Std., failed at the time of their enrollment into the force as Grade-II Police Constables. Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible to fix their pay on par with their junior, who was quoted by the petitioners in their representation. 7. The petitioners are SSLC failed as educational qualification at the time of their enrollment, but the persons who were quoted in the representation of the petitioners had SSLC passed as additional qualification, for which, they got 3 additional increments. The decision in this regard, was clarified by the Director General of Police, in memorandum dated 13.08.2002. 7. The petitioners are SSLC failed as educational qualification at the time of their enrollment, but the persons who were quoted in the representation of the petitioners had SSLC passed as additional qualification, for which, they got 3 additional increments. The decision in this regard, was clarified by the Director General of Police, in memorandum dated 13.08.2002. Thus, the cases of the writ petitioners were rejected on the ground that there is no provision in existing rules to step up of pay of seniors having lesser qualification with that of junior with higher qualification. 8. The reasons stated in the counter affidavit that the benefit of stepping up of pay was not granted in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not possessing the qualification of SSLC passed at the time of appointment. This Court is of an opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of rejection, as the reasons stated are candid and convincing. The comparison between the petitioners and their juniors shows that they are incomparable by virtue of the additional educational qualification acquired by the petitioners and grant of 3 additional increments for the qualification. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in these writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.